Time-series dynamics of Baltic trade flows: Structural breaks, regime shifts, and exchange-rate volatility

Aim/purpose – In the decades since their reintegration with the West, the small open economies of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have seen their trade flows grow substantially. While the mix of trade partners has evolved over time, the region has been affected by various political and economic shocks. This study examines the bilateral trade balances between the Baltic countries and nine partners to investigate whether there have been structural breaks due to political or economic events. Because these events may have been “priced into” exchange rates or increased these rates’ volatility, connections between these variables and trade balances are also considered. Design/methodology/approach – Monthly data beginning in 1994 are taken from the International Monetary Fund’s Direction of Trade Statistics [DOTS]. Trade partners include the Nordic countries of Finland, Sweden, and Norway, as well as Poland, Russia, and the United States and country groupings such as the CIS, Advanced Economies, and the World. Ratios of the export and import values are used to create bilateral trade balances. The Bai–Perron (1998) structural break test is then used to identify “break points” that can classify time periods into regimes. Baltic nominal and real effective exchange rates, both in log changes and as a GARCH-based volatility measure, show whether regimes correspond to competitiveness or risk. Correlations are calculated to show links between bilateral trade balances and real exchange rates. Findings – Each trade balance has at least one structural break; many have more. In fewer than half of the cases do these correspond to specific events such as EU accession or the Global Financial Crisis. Trade with Russia has decreased, particularly for Estonia and Latvia. But many partners with historical ties, such as Estonia-Finland, Latvia- -Sweden, and Lithuania-Poland have more breaks than do other partners (such as Estonia- -Poland). Structural breaks in real exchange-rate returns and volatility do not match those of trade balances, and correlations between returns and trade balances are low. Research implications/limitations – These findings open the door to future research on the macroeconomic and cultural/historical factors behind these trade linkages and any changes in regimes. However, no structural determinants have yet been estimated. Originality/value/contribution – This study isolates changes in trade regimes, which can be further explained by specific events or particular dates. It also shows that variance has changed as well as the mean, but this differs by country and by the partner.